Ashby et al v. Bank of America NA et al

Filing
24

ORDER that Defendant's 23 Motion to Dismiss is granted. ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/16/2013.(LFIG)

1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
Debra J. Ashby and Nicholas Ashby, a
husband and wife,
Plaintiffs,
11
12
13
14
No. 12-CV-01448-PHX-JAT
ORDER
v.
Bank of America, N.A. and John and
Jane Does I-X and Black and White
Corporations I-X,
Defendants.
15
16
Pending before the Court is Defendant, Bank of America’s Motion to Dismiss
17
Plaintiffs’ complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 23). The
18
Court will grant Defendant’s motion for the following reasons.
19
I.
BACKGROUND
20
On June 6, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendant in
21
state Superior Court in Pinal County. (Doc. 1-1 at 3-12). The Complaint alleged four
22
claims against Defendant. (Id.). On July 3, 2012, Defendant removed this case to federal
23
court. (Doc. 1). On February 15, 2013, Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss
24
requesting that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim
25
upon which relief can be granted.
26
Defendant’s motion contesting Defendant’s argument.
27
II.
28
(Doc. 23).
Plaintiffs did not file a response to
ANALYSIS
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i) provides that if an “unrepresented party or
1
counsel does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such non-
2
compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may
3
dispose of the issue summarily.” LRCiv. 7.2(i). Local Rule 7.2(c) requires responsive
4
memoranda to be filed within fourteen (14) days after a motion is served.
5
“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”
6
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Warren, 601
7
F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979)). “Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor,
8
[even] pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Id. at 54 (citing King v.
9
Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). “Before dismissing the action, the district
10
court is required to weigh several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious
11
resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice
12
to the [party seeking dismissal]; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
13
merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Id. at 53 (quoting Henderson v.
14
Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “The first two of these factors favor the
15
imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth cuts against a default or dismissal
16
sanction.
17
Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). The Ninth Circuit Court of
18
Appeals “review[s] the ‘district court’s dismissal pursuant to its local rules for abuse of
19
discretion.
20
discretion in connection with the application of local rules.’” Sekhon v. BAC Home Loans
21
Servicing LP, 11-57131, 2013 WL 857617, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 8, 2013) (quoting Ghazali,
22
46 F.3d at 53).
Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions.”
Only in rare cases will [the Court of Appeals] question the exercise of
23
In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld summary dismissal of a 42
24
U.S.C. § 1983 action for the failure to follow a Nevada district court local rule because the
25
pro se plaintiff failed to respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at
26
53. The Nevada rule, like Local Rule 7.2(i), considered the failure to file a response to a
27
motion to “constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” Id. (quoting D. Nev. R.
28
140-6). The Court reasoned that the dismissal was proper because the pro se plaintiff was
-2-
1
bound by the rules of procedure, and was given notice of the motion and ample time to
2
respond. Id. at 54 (citing King, 814 F.2d at 567).
3
Unlike the plaintiff in Ghazali, Plaintiffs in this case are not pro se litigants and
4
are represented by counsel. Like Ghazali, Plaintiffs in this case have not responded
5
despite receiving notice of Defendant’s motion to dismiss which was issued over six
6
months ago.
7
resolution and docket management—generally favor dismissal. Wanderer, 910 F.2d at
8
656. They weigh especially heavily here because of Plaintiffs’ total failure to respond to
9
Defendant’s dispositive motion.
10
11
(Doc. 23).
As noted in Wanderer, the first two factors—expeditious
The third factor also favors dismissal. There is no risk of prejudice to Defendants
to grant the motion.
12
While the public policy favoring resolution on the merits weighs against dismissal,
13
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir.2002), it is no more compelling here
14
than it was in Ghazali. Further, in this case, Defendant asserts that dismissal would be
15
appropriate based on various other grounds going to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, and
16
Plaintiffs have failed to dispute those arguments. Accordingly, this factor weighs only
17
slightly against dismissal.
18
The final factor requires the Court to consider the availability of less drastic
19
sanctions. Defendant has moved for the Court to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
20
The Court could grant Defendant’s motion without prejudice as a less drastic sanction.
21
Plaintiffs are represented by counsel. Plaintiffs have also been given ample time to
22
respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or to move for an extension of time to file a
23
response and have not done so. Thus, in weighing this last factor, the Court finds that
24
dismissal without prejudice is the only acceptable less drastic sanction in this case.
25
In sum, the five-factor analysis supports dismissal of this case for failure to
26
respond to the Motion to Dismiss. The Court’s decision to grant the motion in these
27
circumstances is further supported by the fact that it is premised upon a local rule that
28
expressly permits the Court to summarily grant unopposed motions. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at
-3-
1
53 (quoting Warren, 601 F.2d at 474 (“Only in rare cases will we question the exercise of
2
discretion in connection with the application of local rules.)). Defendant’s Motion to
3
Dismiss will therefore be granted based on Plaintiffs’ failure to respond. See LRCiv
4
7.2(i).
5
III.
CONCLUSION
6
Based on the foregoing,
7
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23) is granted.
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice.
9
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
10
11
accordingly.
Dated this 16th day of August, 2013.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.